33 Comments
User's avatar
Frederick Roth's avatar

There is a very valuable lesson in the rhetorical treatment of the Voice issue that relates directly to the Gender one... I'm pleased to say I converted someone to the gender-critical perspective some time ago. But when I expressed my scepticism of the Voice initiative to her and toward related "accepted narratives" of Aboriginal politics she reacted in precisely the same way as the gender-identity people do when their sacred truths are questioned - reflexive assumption of bad faith (or stupidity/lack of education). This is very emblematic of modern discourse - which Julie herself argued against very recently.

I think activists have talked so long of Aboriginal sovereignty, self determination and other ideological objectives that they truly convinced themselves that the public actually agreed to them - to rudely find that the bulk public never actually accepted these principles or consented to them. To find this out feels like a slap in the face, but it is not. Australia has not been allowed to engage in true open discourse about this issue because all discussion is strongly curated and held under the sword of Damocles accusation of being racist for straying too far off the approved path. I hope the positive out of this referendum is openness to having an actual honest debate. Ironically the real debate will actually take place after the vote is held.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

I’m glad you converted someone to sanity on gender! 😂

Expand full comment
ORBB's avatar

This from Hildebrand resonated with me very strongly:

"And so it means nothing to most of us but it means everything to some of us. And it would be a sorry and senseless shame if those of us for whom it didn’t matter crushed the dreams of those for whom it could mean the world."

There's a lot of hyperbole and drivel from the Yes campaign that makes my eyes roll, and I don't have any confidence that it will make any difference but I am definitely voting Yes. I won't be a dreamcrusher.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

I agree: such a great line. Wish I had written it myself!

Expand full comment
ScarlettHamiltonAustralia's avatar

I am a huge supporter of you Julie, however, I must respectfully disagree with your arguments for voting YES. How can anyone in good conscience wish to permanently embed preferential treatment and veto power to one race? This is the very definition of racism. I was raised on The Age and the ABC, and an advisory body and recognition of indigenous people passes the pub test - absolutely yes - however, constitutional change that favours one race - unequivocally no.

Expand full comment
Paul Norton's avatar

Scarlett, there is nothing in the proposed Constitutional amendment that "gives a veto to one race". The Voice will make representations to the Parliament and Executive government, and the Parliament and Executive government will decide whether or not to act in accordance with those representations.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

I can understand your anxiety Scarlett. But ultimately I agree with Paul Norton's view below.

Expand full comment
Barry York's avatar

The main problem for most NO voters, as I see it, is that The Voice does not need to be part of constitutional alteration. Whatever the mechanism eventually adopted by parliament, it will be the mechanism, the architecture of the advisory body, that will either work or otherwise, or just partly work, in terms of achieving positive practical outcomes.

I began as someone wanting to be persuaded by the YES case, in part because of my respect and admiration for Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton. However, as months went on and I opened my mind to the NO case, especially as presented by Warren Mundine and Anthony Dillon, I changed.

I'd also add that I have become disenchanted with Noel Pearson. In my close following of the leaders of both sides, it was he who set the downward tone into nastiness and rancour. The irony, the very sad irony, is that Noel and Marcia, as Indigenous leaders who have always sought practicable solutions to problems on the ground, still probably have more in common with the approach and policies of Jacinta, Warren and Anthony than they have with, say, the Greens.

The pragmatic leaders have become very divided over something that could be accomplished by legislation - and will be anyway - without any need for the sticking point of constitutional alteration.

Expand full comment
Paul Norton's avatar

I'm not sure whether this issue, on its own, is the main problem for most No voters, but I am sure it is a problem for some of them. The more general point is that the voters who could make the difference between the referendum succeeding or failing are people who are considering voting No for reasons like this, or for other reasons to do with doubts or concerns about the proposed constitutional alteration. These are not racist reasons for voting No, and people who are considering voting No for these reasons will not be persuaded by the cry of "Racist!". They need to have their doubts and concerns addressed in a respectful way.

Expand full comment
Frederick Roth's avatar

If you wish to know the main problem for no voters (at least me) - it is this: I have ceased to believe that there is a causative connection between political structures/power and welfare outcomes. Since the Whitlamite cultural revolution Aboriginal/Left activists have packaged together welfare objectives and their (the activists') politico-ideological aspirations, and done so deliberately to make the latter cynically "ride on top of" the former by appealing to the public's good will. The base narrative is that political power/self-determination is required to allow closing of the gap. I used to believe these claims, but after 35 years in Oz I do not anymore.

The reconciliation movement has been hijacked by the left and repurposed into a Black Nationalist/revanchist movement, while I believe there is a moral imperative to look after those worse off/victims of racism, there is no such imperative mandating support of the former. The reason why 1967 succeeded was that it appealed to good will - the current movement seeks to stoke guilt and demean - I wasn't born here but I imagine it feels pretty demeaning to be called "settler" for people whose ancestors were born here.

There is also a massive class divide easily visible within this issue - lots of Victorian terraces in Fitzroy with YES placards. Not many in the Housing Commission homes across the street.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

Some truth in what you say. Except the indigenous leaders at the helm of the Yes campaign explicitly reject the grievance/welfare agenda. It’s what they most wish to change.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

Barry, which of Mundine's arguments in particular swayed you?

Expand full comment
Barry York's avatar

It was not just Mundine but lack of detail in the YES arguments as to what the mechanism would look like and how it would be elected.

However, Mundine's submission to the parliamentary committee impressed me. I just read through it again taking notes for my reply here but the conclusion sums it up well:

"The proposed amendments to the Constitution and the Voice do not recognise first nations people.

"This Bill recognises and entrenches Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as a race of people. It does not recognise our first nations.

"The Voice will empower people to speak for country who don’t have authority to do so. It will

effectively erase first nations off the map.

"No other group of Australians will have a constitutionally enshrined, unelected body that can purport to speak on their behalf to the entirety of the Commonwealth with a presumed uniform opinion. This Bill singles out only one race of people – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - be treated in this way.

"This Bill seeks to reinstates racial segregation into the Constitution and race-based treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will, in effect, reverse the 1967 Referendum.

"Traditional owners should be their own voice for their own nation and country. A national Voice cannot speak for country".

Hios submission also showed how the much-vaunted 'consultations' and 'dialogues' were actually very limited. He draws on the Co-Design's report to show how only between 5,500 and 9,000 people were actually consulted (out of 800,000). This probably is indeed the biggest consultation process involving Indigenous people (if they were all Indigenous) but it is not the great representative consultation the media would have us believe.

He also refers to the Referendum Council's report to show the limited nature of the well publicized 'dialogues'.

So, gradually, I went from initially wanting to support the YES position, to being persuaded by the contrary point of views plus the weaknesses in the YES case.

I also became pissed off with the nastiness, which has been apparent on bith sides but which I believe, from my following of the situation, originated with prominent people on the YES side.

I'll just add that I'm not intense about any of this and believe that the great majority on both sides have goodwill for Indigenous people.

Expand full comment
Barry York's avatar

PS - I should not have said "how it will be elected" as the CoDesign report leaves open the possibility/likelihood that its members won't be elected but rather will be appointed. The Minister, Burney, has not committed to an elected Voice.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

Thanks for the detailed reply. Interesting.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

There's a lot-- a lot-- of truth in what you say here Barry. I'm sticking with Yes.. but I'm not a beyond a shadow of a doubt "yes."

Expand full comment
ScarlettHamiltonAustralia's avatar

A lovely reply. Thank you Julie.

Expand full comment
ScarlettHamiltonAustralia's avatar

Thank you Julie. Yes, my anxiety is present. When you hear one of the co-authors of the Voice say things like this - one has cause to be concerned:

Where Albo says, “This is a modest request”, Mayo says, “There is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations' Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with.”

Where Albo says, “all of us can own an equal share of what I believe will be an inspiring and unifying Australian moment”, Mayo says “A politician or party that ignores, or legislates against that collective Voice will do so at their peril because we will be organised and ready.”

Where Albo says, “What shines so brightly at the very core of its gracious request is the desire to bring us all closer together as a people reconciled”, Mayo says “We are sick of governments not listening to our voice … we are going to use the rulebook of the nation to force them.”

There is malevolence and grievance in his intent. With such voices pushing the agenda I believe my concerns about "veto power" are supported. It would take a government of heroic political will to stand up against such voice(s) since, once in the Constitution, it is irreversible. Such vengeance and bitterness is ongoing and unquenchable.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

You raise extremely valid points here. And I've also heard other people make that argument. But it's part of a bigger problem, which is the perception that Labor governments are reluctant to override the wishes of identity groups. But they're going to have to learn how to govern as honest brokers eventually, Voice or no Voice.

Expand full comment
Paul Norton's avatar

I very largely agree with Julie's post.

It has become clearer to me as the Voice debate has gone on that those of us in the politically engaged sectors both underestimate the extent of the differences in perceptions on an issue like this between ourselves and our less engaged fellow citizens, and only imperfectly understand the nature of those differences. This will pose a challenge for us long after the Voice referendum.

I also think that there is a story to be told for posterity about how much faith those in the Labor brains trust placed in the Coalition to, if not provide bipartisan support, at least offer no more than nominal resistance, and what kind of contingency plan the Federal Government had in the always likely event that this was not the case. Wayne Swan's statement on the Today show that "nobody expected the Liberals to be this bloody-minded" was a jaw-dropping moment.

Expand full comment
Michael Gawenda's avatar

Thanks for this Julie. Your doubts are clear now. I share some but not all. As far as the politics is concerned, unlike you, I fear that conservative governments if led by people like Dutton will ignore the voice and as far as possible, neuter it - which it could do simply by cutting funding etc. I am not concerned about lousy advice being forced on governments- I cannot imagine a circumstance where government feels it will pay a political price for rejecting lousy advice from the Voice.

Why is the Yes case tanking?

1/ Because contested referendums almost always fail and the No case invariably fear of change based - will only make things worse.

2;/ The government from Albanese down have failed to clearly put the yes case. The failure is astounding. I put it down to hubris, a feeling that they have the better of Dutton and his reactionaries. Beat him easily. It didn’t cross their minds I reckon that Senator Price could be the outstanding politician of the referendum campaign and if that happened, they were gone. She has politically destroyed Linda Burney.

3/ I cannot measure its effects or it’s importance but racism has played a part. I think everyone how’s it and I think it is therefore unsustainable to ask indigenous leaders to never utter the R word, never get angry, never despair. It is impossible I believe, to have a real and ethical Voice campaign and never ever use the R word.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

Yes it’s hard to measure the impact of the racism and the accusations of racism. And you’re right; it’s unrealistic to expect indigenous leaders not to call it out. Certainly a hostile conservative government would be a problem. But I don’t share your complete optimism that Labor governments can withstand the pressure to adopt lousy advice. It’s happening with governments around the country every day! Hopefully the federal government is more grown up. Your analysis of what’s gone wrong seems spot on. One thing I should have mentioned: the insertion of “executive government”’ made a lot of people nervous. Seemed like the goalposts were shifting.

Expand full comment
ant's avatar

Worth reading thanks.

I'll add that the Yes campaign has consistently failed to address many of the predictable No arguments, instead falling into general claims of its righteousness. It's a losing strategy.

For example, the need for constitutional enshrinement: Yes says the voice will never be silenced by the tides of power in parliament, unlike previously failed indigenous bodies. Unconvincing at best. Government can legislate to have whatever representatives it likes on the voice, thereby silencing whomever it doesn't want to have speak to the parliament.

This much is obvious to anyone who starts to interrogate the Yes claims and this kind of mistake has been made again and again by the Yes campaign.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

A losing strategy. I agree.

Expand full comment
Michael Gawenda's avatar

This is a terrific example of great opinion journalism- nuanced, clear, deeply thought and felt, written to open thinking rather than close it down. All that said, I do not have the doubts about the amendment that Julie has and I would have liked her to spell out those doubts. And I wonder, does she agree with Barry York’s harsh judgement of Noel Pearson? No you think Julie that the Indigenous leaders should never call out racism? Never refer to some of what the No case is putting out as racist fear mongering?

Thank you for the piece Julie.

Expand full comment
Julie Szego's avatar

Thanks Michael! Much appreciated. ❤️In answer to your questions: 1. Yes I have doubts, like I said, I believe the Yes case outweighs the No case. Most of the doubts have been expressed by readers here. I'm not happy about not being shown the nuts and bolts of how this will work. (I am, somewhere deep down, still a lawyer and therefore instinctively nervous about any fiddling with the Constitution.) I'm worried about the politics: will governments have the balls to reject lousy advice or will the moral force of the Voice make this too fraught in practice? And I want to hear more examples of what's likely to change, how are outcomes likely to better. Or are we tinkering with our Constitution for just more of the same failure? 2. Re Noel Pearson: I think you're being a bit harsh about Barry's alleged harsh judgment. He makes it clear he has a lot of respect for Noel Pearson but that he's made tonal misjudgments. I have tremendous admiration for Noel Pearson and I always will. Did he make some errors of tone here? Probably. But I'm not hanging this impending on failure on him. It's way bigger than him. Which leads us to 3. Should indigenous leaders never call out some of the No case's fear mongering? I don't know: like I said, it's a tough dilemma, as Katharine Murphy expressed very well in her weekend column. It seems an impossible ask not to call it out. On the other hand, I do know it's what the No case is banking on: in that sense it's a deliberate trap. I want to ask you this, Michael. The polls are diabolical. It may change but on present indications we're not just heading for defeat but for resounding defeat. Why do you think this is happening?

Expand full comment
Running in Rain: Cheryl Hercus's avatar

Noel Pearson lost me when he called Mick Gooda a “bed wetter”. This was not calling our racism, but making a degrading attack on another Indigenous leader. It made me feel sick and left me questioning my support for the voice.

Expand full comment
Michael Gawenda's avatar

Yes that is not defensible. It’s it enough to discredit Pearson? Not in my view, not given his long history of advocating for his people passionately, eloquently but respectfully. Respectful even to conservative politicians who did not treat him with much respect.

Expand full comment
Janita Cunnington's avatar

Part 2 of my comment:

It seems to me that the entrenched, intergenerational disadvantage among Indigenous people has less to do with racism (though of course that exists; human beings are very tribal animals) and more to do with a romantic notion of cultural preservation. Like all societies, traditional Indigenous societies had a particular economic base, from which their spiritual beliefs, art, customs and land-management practices directly sprang. That economic base — hunting and gathering (and, in the case of the Torres Strait Islanders, gardening) — was augmented by trade in certain goods. Quote from Aboriginal Economy and Society: Australia at the Threshold of Colonisation, by Ian Keen 2004:

"It is evident, then, that those in possession or control of items of great value, especially religious knowledge (connected to inalienable possessions), access to girls and women as spouses, and access to valued foods and raw materials, could command valued resources in return, in quantity and on an enduring basis. So the gift of a sister, daughter or niece as a wife could yield many years of gifts of food and services in return. (p. 374)”

And from my notes:

“… I came away with a renewed appreciation of the intricate knowledge all these peoples had of the food sources of their homeland, and of how to obtain what they needed…" “Equally impressive is the byzantine complexity of their kin relationships and lore — their systems of food distribution, marriage, initiation ceremonies, prohibitions, retribution, responsibilities and so on. Violence was accepted as a legitimate form of self-expression, as well as, when ritualised or sanctioned by custom, a way of enforcing the law.”

This type of economy is incompatible with modern society. It’s delusional to believe that a viable traditional society can coexist with modern medicine, housing, education etc. (Read The Passion of Private White by Don Watson, 2022, for an account of one 50-year attempt to at such coexistence.) The hunting and gathering economy has gone, just as the economy of colonial Australia has gone, and as the economy of twentieth century is going. Whatever our feelings of nostalgia for times past, we must all accept that reality.

Sounds like assimilation, I hear you say. No, I reply, but it does mean integration. In a pluralistic society such as ours, integration means full participation in the modern economy while accommodating whole suites of cultural inflection. This seems to me to be the only way out of the trap of intergenerational misery.

Expand full comment
Janita Cunnington's avatar

Ah, Julie, I’m not with you on this. Here’s a long-winded explanation of why, broken into two parts so as to comply with length restrictions:

I opposed the Voice on the grounds of 1) principle and 2) pragmatism.

1) Principle

I subscribe to Enlightenment principles, among them universal humanism, the ethical primacy of the individual conscience, Kant’s categorical imperative, objective truth and the assumption that evidence trumps belief. Taken together, these imply that a fundamental feature of a good society is formal equality before the law. (Because the Voice as proposed would not only have violated this principle but would have embedded the violation in the country’s rule book, the pragmatic arguments in its favour would have had to be very strong for me to vote for it.)

I oppose identity politics. Rights should be accorded to individuals, not groups. (One of those rights is the right of association, which entails the right to organise along the lines of special interest or belief and to lobby or run for office to further those interests or beliefs. This right does not, however, entail any institutionalised privilege.) This principle has been lost sight of. Generations of students have been educated in the doctrines of, first, cultural relativism, then postmodernism, then conflict theory, then critical race theory and now intersectionality. These ideologies, tapping in as they do to the age-old human propensity for forming group allegiances, have taken hold in society at large, with the result that many (most?) are unable to conceive of the world without these heuristics.

Identity politics (blood and soil and all that) used to be the preserve of reactionaries. Progressives took the universalist position, maintaining that people’s similarities far outweigh their differences when it comes to matters that concern the State. They believed that a) belonging to a particular social category (class, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc.) is not necessarily the main, let alone the sole, determinant of an individual’s views on anything; b) establishing representation on the basis of such categories suppresses dissent within the category and among sympathisers and disenfranchises dissenters; and c) it’s far fairer and more efficient to allow individuals to make their choices directly rather than by virtue of their social categorisation.

In the past, conservatives tended toward an essentialist and rather mystical view of ethnicity. The far right still do, but progressives are now giving them a run for their money. This is evidenced by, among other things, the sophistical conflation of culture with race.

Despite these misgivings, I would have accepted a legislated Voice as a compromise because so many people had invested so much time, energy and hope in it, and because of the way a defeat would be interpreted.

2) Pragmatism

I also opposed the Voice on pragmatic grounds:

1. It was by no means clear to me how it would be constituted, what procedures it would entail, who would be eligible to be representatives and who would be eligible to vote. It seemed to me liable to lead to a lot of conflict in Indigenous communities.

2. I was not persuaded that such a group could genuinely represent Indigenous people, given the diversity of interests and opinions among them and the localised nature of most (all?) the problems the Voice was intended to address.

3. Two questions were presented as one. The wording was: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.” We were not given a chance to vote for the first part of the proposal (“… to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia”) without also voting for the inclusion of the Voice in the constitution — a far more contentious matter.

4. It was said that the Voice had to be included in the constitution so that it could not be disbanded at the whim of a government, as ATSIC had been. But the proposal could have been presented in two parts without sacrificing this ambition. My suspicion is that everyone concerned believed that the general goodwill of the Australian people would be enough to overcome any qualms about the more contentious clause as long as they were yoked together — but not if they weren’t.

5. It’s important for an elected government to be able disband an organisation it has created — one that relies on public funding — if it proves to be dysfunctional.

6. The reasoning was opaque. If the rationale for the Voice’s existence was to overcome Indigenous disadvantage, enshrining it in the constitution implied that Indigenous disadvantage would never be overcome.

7. If overcoming Indigenous disadvantage was only one part of the rationale and the other was establishing a body exclusive to Indigenous people that was to exist in perpetuity (even after the practical work has been done), the question arises: Why? Where was the justification? Was it just intended as atonement for historical injustices?

8. I couldn’t see how treating Indigenous people, regardless of their wealth or social standing, as radically and permanently exceptional could reduce racism or overcome the appalling conditions suffered by people living in remote communities. How could it possibly lead to better relations between Indigenous people and other Australians? While most Indigenous people would probably feel honoured by such distinction, and less aggrieved as a result, among non-Indigenous Australians, especially those who were themselves disadvantaged, such an emphatic conferring of an honour and privilege on the basis of race (or heritage, if you prefer) — an honour and privilege from which they themselves were permanently excluded — was bound to rankle.

9. If the processes of our representative democracy are so faulty that, despite having the same voting rights as everyone else, Aboriginal people feel they have no voice, then plenty of other Australians are bound to feel the same way and we need to reform those processes. No political system, charged as it is with reconciling competing demands, can satisfy everyone, but a representative system based on one person one vote is the best one people have been able to come up with. Nevertheless, there is plenty of scope for tweaking. Establishing mechanisms that make authorities more responsive and allow more local control would be a good start.

10. Far from trying something different, it seemed to me that the Voice was more of the same, only this time enshrining it in the constitution. The Voice was the latest in a long series of policies that have sought to overcome Indigenous disadvantage by treating Indigenous people differently from other Australians, with the result that their disadvantage, in remote communities in particular, has become more rather than less acute. (See The Politics of Suffering by Peter Sutton.) These policies, along with the ideologies of cultural relativism and conflict theory, not to mention woeful ignorance about our institutions of government, have steadily eroded the principle of formal equality, both in people’s consciousness and in fact.

11. Among Indigenous people in urban areas, disadvantage is much less marked than in remote communities, and a large proportion of Indigenous people — those who are part of the modern economy — are doing very well indeed. Making indigeneity rather than need the criterion for special benefits has already led to smouldering resentment, particularly among non-Indigenous battlers.

12. It seemed obvious to me that a campaign focused on heritage (read race) was asking for trouble. For every assertion of Indigenous exceptionalism, there was likely to be an equal and opposite reaction. You don’t want everyone obsessing about their heritage, particularly about the legitimacy or otherwise of their presence in the land they call home.

13. The campaign was inviting non-Indigenous Australians to see Indigenous Australians as fundamentally different from themselves. Having woken that sleeping dragon, it would be very hard to put it to sleep again.

14. Once one group obtained special constitutional consideration, there was a danger that other aggrieved groups would press for similar consideration.

15. Despite a rapidly increasing population, Indigenous Australians are still heavily outnumbered by non-Indigenous Australians. In a showdown with an aroused and angry populace primed to see race as salient, Indigenous people are unlikely to prevail.

16. History attests that humanity’s default outlook is tribal. Other than preaching goodwill, the only way to resist the perennial forces of societal schism is to uphold the civic structures that say unequivocally, WE ARE ALL KIN.

The question that weighed most heavily with me was whether the bitter disappointment of the Indigenous Yes campaigners if the Voice failed to get up would be more or less destructive of social harmony than the anger and resentment of non-Indigenous No voters if it did. Indigenous campaigners made it clear that they would take a No vote personally, and that certainly bothered me. It made me dither. However, I was also aware that ordinary people have a rule-of-thumb notion of justice by which special treatment on the basis of group membership rather than need is deemed unfair, and enshrining such unfairness in the constitution might incline them to turn against the beneficiaries — with the potential for very nasty results.

Expand full comment
Running in Rain: Cheryl Hercus's avatar

I really appreciated Julie’s nuanced article in UnHerd yesterday. I voted. Yes, but feel the yes campaign didn’t do a good job of bringing people along with it. I am commenting here because many of the comments on the UnHerd article have an aggressive tone and I don’t want to engage at all with the people posting them. I just want Julie to know that I appreciate her nuanced views on so many issues.

Expand full comment
Bureaucrat's avatar

While I'm open to the possibility that there's some misrepresentations or omissions, I think Warren Mundine really hits home with this op-ed. Maybe the referendum question ultimately comes down to "should we give this another go despite past failures?"

Yes campaign selling a fantasy https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yes-campaign-selling-fantasy-nyunggai-warren-mundine-ao

Expand full comment
Bureaucrat's avatar

Because I can't edit Substack comments, I'd like to add that Julie's post is so incredibly refreshing, as is the comments section. I wish the broader debate was run along these lines - probably an impossible wish, but it's a relief to see it occurring in less prominent spaces. Thank you for facilitating a meaningful discussion!

Expand full comment